Britain, Scotland Sign Deal For Independence Referendum

[theblether]

To address the mechanics of this referendum, the referendum will be held to ask people if they want Scotland to be an independent country, if the Scots vote yes then the Scottish government will enter into negotiations with the UK government about the terms of the settlement.

Independence will not be achieved the day after the referendum, therefore British passports held by Scots will still be valid, as we will still be travelling as UK citizens. Visa issues etc will not raise their head until the day after actual independence, and the actual day of Independence won't occur until 2016 at the earliest.

By that point our consular and diplomatic services will be up and running, I happen to know that Scotland will looking to put a minimum of four consular offices into the US alone. Other issues such as membership of the United Nations, EU and others will be addressed quickly. Contrary to opinion I believe EU membership will be swift as the EU will be dealing with a well known and stable entity, born of a democratic process, unlike countries such as Croatia and others that were born of war.

The negotiations will not be as fraught as some think, at the end of the day we still share a lot of history and family ties, and the sky won't fall in if we get independence, it's as simple as that.

[bigbamboo]

I'm always slightly surprised by the enthusiasm with which some British people denigrate their country.

SC

In the old days, back when Thailand was still Siam and you could actually say what you were thinking in public, the British were actually very modest about our nation, it's people and it's achievements, even self deprecating. Whilst other nationalities might claim to be superior the British modestly didn't.

We just assumed everyone knew that already.

[StreetCowboy]

I'm always slightly surprised by the enthusiasm with which some British people denigrate their country.

SC

In the old days, back when Thailand was still Siam and you could actually say what you were thinking in public, the British were actually very modest about our nation, it's people and it's achievements, even self deprecating. Whilst other nationalities might claim to be superior the British modestly didn't.

We just assumed everyone knew that already.

Sadly we can no longer take for granted the education of Johnny Foreigner, and sometimes we have to point out to them the obvious, at the risk of accusations of pride or self-aggrandisement, One does not need to blow one's own trumpet, but sometimes it is helpful to point out the size, the shine and the majestic timbre of the instrument; and whilst one may be modest about one's meagre bugle, that is not to rubbish it, nor to criticise one's fellows in the fanfare.

SC

[StreetCowboy]

To address the mechanics of this referendum, the referendum will be held to ask people if they want Scotland to be an independent country, if the Scots vote yes then the Scottish government will enter into negotiations with the UK government about the terms of the settlement.

Independence will not be achieved the day after the referendum, therefore British passports held by Scots will still be valid, as we will still be travelling as UK citizens. Visa issues etc will not raise their head until the day after actual independence, and the actual day of Independence won't occur until 2016 at the earliest.

By that point our consular and diplomatic services will be up and running, I happen to know that Scotland will looking to put a minimum of four consular offices into the US alone. Other issues such as membership of the United Nations, EU and others will be addressed quickly. Contrary to opinion I believe EU membership will be swift as the EU will be dealing with a well known and stable entity, born of a democratic process, unlike countries such as Croatia and others that were born of war.

The negotiations will not be as fraught as some think, at the end of the day we still share a lot of history and family ties, and the sky won't fall in if we get independence, it's as simple as that.

It's not really independence I'm worried about - that's just an unnecessary extravagance. I'm more worried about self-rule. Given that we can't find competent politicians the length and breadth of the kingdom, I wonder how we will fare when we restrict our search to the parochial marches north of the Tweed.

I'm still not clear whether we will be eligible to claim Scottish nationality, nor whether, when the issue comes to a head, I will be grateful not to have a choice!

SC

[Scott]

Inflammatory posts have been deleted. Please keep the discussion civil.

[theblether]

@SC

We have our average share of politicians and a well above share of people who will let their feelings be known if things go wrong. Part of this debate is about taking responsibility for ourselves and not blaming the UK government for everything.

The old adage " be careful what you ask for as sometimes you will get it " may well come into play here.

[folium]

@GentlemanJim,

Is that the best you can do? there will be a few people reading that part of the post who had no idea that the seat on the UN Security Council is under threat.....and in this day and age we're seeing the Veto being wielded by Russia and China in connection with Syria and Iran on a constant basis.

Russia is still trying to get what it failed to get from the Crimean War, and China is building a new set of alliances in the Islamic world.

The UN Security Council is the highest political chamber in the World, that's where wars are approved or blocked. Big boy politics, and the UK wields the vote on behalf of the Commonwealth. To lose that would have serious ramifications.

Naturally you knew that.

Your first point was about shared embassy/consular facilities....

Therefore irrelevant as a consideration as to whether or not Scotland stays as a part of the UK.

Your second point....

2. Cameron needs to maintain the Union, the implications to the standing of the UK in World terms is far beyond what many people here now realize. For example, there is a campaign running just now to have the UK removed as a permanent member of the UN Security council, it is unlikely that the seat would be retained after Independence for Scotland. The UN Security Council seat has a value far beyond what most people here realize. That is only one of many issues that will come under scrutiny by the international community, and losing Scotland could relegate the UK into the second tier of countries within a generation. May I point out to our Commonwealth cousins, the UN Security Council seat is de facto their seat too, the UK uses the veto to represent the best interests of the UK and the Commonwealth. If we didn't have it, then we would have to rely even more on the ever weakening US for protection. Australians in particular should be switched on to the currents developments in regards to defence in their country. Like it or lump it, the Oz government knows the country is highly vulnerable to invasion due to the vast size of the place, so they need to put up more deterrent signals to possible Chinese expansionism, hence the token presence of US marines in Darwin.

Drivel. Reform of the UNSC, which is long overdue as the Permanent Members reflect the winners of WW2 (plus France, sadly), is more than likely to see an enlargement rather than a replacement. Turkeys rarely vote for Christmas. The G4 group (Germany, India, Japan & Brazil) is supported by the UK as new Permanent Members but opposed by regional rivals such as Italy, Pakistan etc. if Scotland goes independent this will have no impact on this debate.

Your next point...

3. The nuclear deterrent is based in Scotland, the cost and implications of moving it to a suitable venue in England are eye watering. It was put in Scotland for a reason, our sea lochs are ideal for the purpose of providing suitable harborage in a secluded location, if you ever get a chance to see Faslane and the area around it, you will see what I mean. I'm no expert, but I don't know of anywhere in England that provides the same enviroment. The political implications of moving the nukes to England would have the NIMBY brigade hanging from the roof tops and could cause a movement to form against the nukes such as we haven't seen since the CND heyday. If the UK loses the nukes, then once again is the fast road to the World second tier.

Wrong again. Devonport is already established as a sub base and has the boomer repair/dry dock facility. Ironically a forced decision re Faslane is excellent news as the present UK nuclear deterrent approach is not fit for current task, as opposed to being a perfect Cold War deterrent stance. Reallocation of funding from Trident and it's replacement, to conventional forces plus the ability to go nuclear in slower time without having to worry about first strike issues, makes far more sense than the current approach. Have a look at the debate in more detail and you will see that losing Faslane would be a huge relief to most rational defence thinkers/ strategists.

Your comment about the Russians picking up from where they left off re the Crimean War highlight your lack of understanding re the Eastern Question, the Four Points etc but anyway it is totally irrelevant to any rational discussion.

So farewell Scotland if that is what you want, please close the door on the way out....England bailed Scotland out with the Act of Union first time round, let' s see what happens this time round.

[StreetCowboy]

@SC

We have our average share of politicians and a well above share of people who will let their feelings be known if things go wrong. Part of this debate is about taking responsibility for ourselves and not blaming the UK government for everything.

The old adage " be careful what you ask for as sometimes you will get it " may well come into play here.

To be honest, I'd rather the SNP focussed on properly subjugating the English, and returning them to the serfdom to which they are so ideally suited. The labour party came close to achieving this, and had it not been for their ridiculous socialist policies, Scotland could have re-established itself at the top tier of nations, in the position that we enjoyed under our guest monarchs, the House of Hanover.

SC

AhcanseewhytheywanttaerevokethelicensefirtheGashaus,bytheway

RIBB

[nontabury]

Nontabury: Perhaps you're not old enough to remember, or perhaps you're not actually that interested, so you weren't paying attention at the time, or perhaps 1979 is too recent in the past, and you're short term memory is not what it once was - we could speculate endlessly. "There's no point speculating", though, as Ray French would say...

In 1975 a majority of the votes cast were for devolution. However, in an unusual twist, for a British vote, there was an additional requirement that at least 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour; this was not achieved. I forget the exact vote percentages - Good Old Wikipedia!

FOR AGAINST

Percent of votes 51.6 48.4

Percent of electorate 32.9 30.9

SC

Thanks for clarifying this point. Still waiting for Theblether to reply to the rest.

Thanks for thinking I might NOT BE OLD enough to know the details, sadly the reason is, I obtained too many head injuries

At school while playing Rugby League.

[7by7]

theblether, I didn't have time this morning to go into a detailed reply to your post 142, and would like to do so now.

Some of the point I'm about to make have already been touched upon by others, so please forgive any repetition.

1) Scotland may well want to share British embassies and consulates; but will the FCO let them? If they do, who will do the work on behalf of Scotland; FCO staff for consular matters and UKBA for Scottish visas? If so, will the Scottish government pay the British government for providing these services, more expense for the Scottish taxpayer, or will they expect the UK government to provide them free of charge?

Or will the Scottish government provide their own staff, whose salaries etc. will have to be paid for by the Scottish taxpayer?

2) Why would the UK lose it's security council seat if Scotland leaves the union? Russia kept it's on the break up of the Soviet Union.

The biggest threat to the UK's seat is the EU. People are already lobbying for the EU to have a permanent seat on the security council at the expense of the UK and France. Can you see the French standing for that? Any moves to remove the UK would, ironically, be blocked by the French as they fear they would be next.

3) As folium has already said, moving the deterrent to Devenport makes sense from a modern strategic view point; one wonders why it hasn't been done already.

Salmond wants Scotland to be 'nuke free,' good luck to him. But has he considered the economic repercussions of Faslane closing? Not just the loss of jobs on the base, but also the loss of money spent in the local area by those stationed at the base and the civilians employed there.

4) Tax. Yes, Scotland pays tax. But it receives more from the Treasury per capita than it pays (as do Wales and Northern Ireland, incidentally. Only England recieves less per capita than it pays).

You make some very good points about the reason for this; but I ask you; where will this money come from when Scotland is no longer receiving it's subsidy from the English tax payer?

Salmond, or his successors, will have to make a stark choice; increase taxes or cut services. When will he tell the Scottish people that a vote for independence is also a vote for tax increases and/or loss of services?

Edited to correct typos.

Edited October 25, 2012 by 7by7

[theblether]

@Folium

"Drivel. Reform of the UNSC, which is long overdue as the Permanent Members reflect the winners of WW2 (plus France, sadly), is more than likely to see an enlargement rather than a replacement. Turkeys rarely vote for Christmas. The G4 group (Germany, India, Japan & Brazil) is supported by the UK as new Permanent Members but opposed by regional rivals such as Italy, Pakistan etc. if Scotland goes independent this will have no impact on this debate."

Just plain wrong, there has been an undercurrent of resentment against the UK veto building for a while, and attempts by the EU to take control of the seat.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58632656/Europe-s-Veto-s-Power-Britain-France-the-United-States-and-the-Reform-of-the-UN-Security-Council

If your going to use derogatory terms such as "drivel" you better make sure what follows is correct. The entire standing of the UK will go into flux if Scotland gains Independence. Just read the summary and weep eh?

To be fair I forgot about Devenport, I was under the impression it was a maintenance yard similar to Rosyth rather than a fully operational submarine base did say that I'm not an expert on the matter. I'll take it you can confirm that Devenport is currently a fully operational Nuclear Sub base?

Here's some links for you re Faslane........

http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/106137-faslane-base-would-remain-with-uk-in-independent-scotland/

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=20012

There seems to be a deep seated concern about losing Faslane, what can I say? The biggest single negotiation after independence will be the future of Faslane.....that seems dramatic to me and the only person that seems to think it will easy to relocate the Subs is you......go figure

Re The Russians, they have been seeking a warm weather port for hundreds of years, that was the primary drive of the Crimean War and the primary reason why they are so supportive of the Syrian Assad regime. If your an expert on this issue then you know how important that issue has been to Russian political thinking since the days of the Tzars. It was relevant to exp[lain why wielding the Veto is so important, you know the same Veto that the EU are trying to take control of?

Your last comment shows how little you know about British history.......maybe it would be better for you to go study it and come back with an explanation as to why England was so determined to absorb Scotland. Let me tell you, it wasn't an act of charity

[StreetCowboy]

Nontabury: Perhaps you're not old enough to remember, or perhaps you're not actually that interested, so you weren't paying attention at the time, or perhaps 1979 is too recent in the past, and you're short term memory is not what it once was - we could speculate endlessly. "There's no point speculating", though, as Ray French would say...

In 1975 a majority of the votes cast were for devolution. However, in an unusual twist, for a British vote, there was an additional requirement that at least 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour; this was not achieved. I forget the exact vote percentages - Good Old Wikipedia!

FOR AGAINST

Percent of votes 51.6 48.4

Percent of electorate 32.9 30.9

SC

Thanks for clarifying this point. Still waiting for Theblether to reply to the rest.

Thanks for thinking I might NOT BE OLD enough to know the details, sadly the reason is, I obtained too many head injuries

At school while playing Rugby League.

Perhas you would have benefited from playing union, as do the schools north of the border, Personally, I would rather not comment on the relative merits of the two codesm though I am keen to see an improvement in Scottish performance in both. I don't know if you are aware of the appalling decision by the rFL to schedule the first round of the Challenge Cup to clash with the European Cup; a decision which, in my opinion, calls into question their commitment to growing the game internationally

http://www.edinburgheagles.co.uk/Edi...STATEMENT.html

SC

[theblether]

Nontabury: Perhaps you're not old enough to remember, or perhaps you're not actually that interested, so you weren't paying attention at the time, or perhaps 1979 is too recent in the past, and you're short term memory is not what it once was - we could speculate endlessly. "There's no point speculating", though, as Ray French would say...

In 1975 a majority of the votes cast were for devolution. However, in an unusual twist, for a British vote, there was an additional requirement that at least 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour; this was not achieved. I forget the exact vote percentages - Good Old Wikipedia!

FOR AGAINST

Percent of votes 51.6 48.4

Percent of electorate 32.9 30.9

SC

Thanks for clarifying this point. Still waiting for Theblether to reply to the rest.

Thanks for thinking I might NOT BE OLD enough to know the details, sadly the reason is, I obtained too many head injuries

At school while playing Rugby League.

To clarify the point.....the 1979 Devolution Referendum required that a yes vote must be supported by 40% of the total registered electorate, sp although the Yes vote won the popular vote as pointed out by SC, we had no chance of going over that 40% figure as no shows counted against us.

In our democracy no show means no participation........it doesn't mean your vote will be counted irrespective. It was a bizarre and anti-democratic imposition by the Labour Party.

[theblether]

@7x7......the first part of this will enrage many, the FCO is not the property of England, and the assumption that the FCO will " let " anything happen is wrong. The FCO will do as their political masters tell them and they will be told the situation after the negotiated settlement.

"Or will the Scottish government provide their own staff, whose salaries etc. will have to be paid for by the Scottish taxpayer?"

Yes we will expect to pay our own way and our own salaries.

I've addressed the threat to the Veto already......anyone who believes that the UK without Scotland will sail through as if nothing happened will be in for a rude shock.

"Salmond wants Scotland to be 'nuke free,' good luck to him. But has he considered the economic repercussions of Faslane closing? Not just the loss of jobs on the base, but also the loss of money spent in the local area by those stationed at the base and the civilians employed there."

Yes this is a burning issue for the election, and it is the type of issue that could see the defeat of the SNP. he knows that, as do all of we SNP supporters.

) Tax. Yes, Scotland pays tax. But it receives more from the Treasury per capita than it pays (as do Wales and Northern Ireland, incidentally. Only England recieves less per capita than it pays).

We are fully aware of this and thius is another issue that will be at the top of the agenda......quite simply it's all about the money. Salmond must provide a watertight financial case for Independence.

I have already predicted that this referendum will produce a No vote.............it's what happens next that will be the key. Salmond wants control of the taxation, and I've read before he is after tax varying powers for Corporation Tax. He is an economist, he knows that a drop of a couple of percentage points compared to the UK rate will result in an influx of investment in Scotland.

That's the game here......get control of the Corporation Tax policy, if he achieves that then you will see him dancing down the street.

Edited October 25, 2012 by theblether

[StreetCowboy]

Nontabury: Perhaps you're not old enough to remember, or perhaps you're not actually that interested, so you weren't paying attention at the time, or perhaps 1979 is too recent in the past, and you're short term memory is not what it once was - we could speculate endlessly. "There's no point speculating", though, as Ray French would say...

In 1975 a majority of the votes cast were for devolution. However, in an unusual twist, for a British vote, there was an additional requirement that at least 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour; this was not achieved. I forget the exact vote percentages - Good Old Wikipedia!

FOR AGAINST

Percent of votes 51.6 48.4

Percent of electorate 32.9 30.9

SC

Thanks for clarifying this point. Still waiting for Theblether to reply to the rest.

Thanks for thinking I might NOT BE OLD enough to know the details, sadly the reason is, I obtained too many head injuries

At school while playing Rugby League.

To clarify the point.....the 1979 Devolution Referendum required that a yes vote must be supported by 40% of the total registered electorate, sp although the Yes vote won the popular vote as pointed out by SC, we had no chance of going over that 40% figure as no shows counted against us.

In our democracy no show means no participation........it doesn't mean your vote will be counted irrespective. It was a bizarre and anti-democratic imposition by the Labour Party.

I don't think it was unreasonable, but it was a bizarre deviation from normal democratic process inthe UK. If we were to apply it to elections in the UK,I don't know what proportion of our elections would be voided, buit I would guess, ,morre than 50%

[jombom]

When will the Scots ever take their balls out of their sporans or whatever, and decide they can live without England ---- yep, no balls.

[theblether]

Nontabury: Perhaps you're not old enough to remember, or perhaps you're not actually that interested, so you weren't paying attention at the time, or perhaps 1979 is too recent in the past, and you're short term memory is not what it once was - we could speculate endlessly. "There's no point speculating", though, as Ray French would say...

In 1975 a majority of the votes cast were for devolution. However, in an unusual twist, for a British vote, there was an additional requirement that at least 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour; this was not achieved. I forget the exact vote percentages - Good Old Wikipedia!

FOR AGAINST

Percent of votes 51.6 48.4

Percent of electorate 32.9 30.9

SC

Thanks for clarifying this point. Still waiting for Theblether to reply to the rest.

Thanks for thinking I might NOT BE OLD enough to know the details, sadly the reason is, I obtained too many head injuries

At school while playing Rugby League.

To clarify the point.....the 1979 Devolution Referendum required that a yes vote must be supported by 40% of the total registered electorate, sp although the Yes vote won the popular vote as pointed out by SC, we had no chance of going over that 40% figure as no shows counted against us.

In our democracy no show means no participation........it doesn't mean your vote will be counted irrespective. It was a bizarre and anti-democratic imposition by the Labour Party.

I don't think it was unreasonable, but it was a bizarre deviation from normal democratic process inthe UK. If we were to apply it to elections in the UK,I don't know what proportion of our elections would be voided, buit I would guess, ,morre than 50%

How about all of them?.........it was a corruption of our democracy.

No show = no, it was and still is just unbelievable and indefensible.

Edited October 25, 2012 by theblether

[StreetCowboy]

When will the Scots ever take their balls out of their sporans or whatever, and decide they can live without England ---- yep, no balls.

1979. Luckily \,the rules were gerrymandered against us.

I look forward to a No vote, in 2014, and enslaving the English to the pitiful ignorant serfdom to which they are so admirably suited, but if we have to, I hope we can proper without the peons

SC

[7by7]

@7x7......the first part of this will enrage many, the FCO is not the property of England, and the assumption that the FCO will " let " anything happen is wrong. The FCO will do as their political masters tell them and they will be told the situation after the negotiated settlement.

Indeed, the FCO is a department of the British government; but by FCO I meant the FCO on the instructions of the government as it will be their resonsibility.

[theblether]

@7x7......the first part of this will enrage many, the FCO is not the property of England, and the assumption that the FCO will " let " anything happen is wrong. The FCO will do as their political masters tell them and they will be told the situation after the negotiated settlement.

Indeed, the FCO is a department of the British government; but by FCO I meant the FCO on the instructions of the government as it will be their resonsibility.

Correct........in the first instance they will carry on as normal, after that they will carry on under the direction of the UK government under the terms of the settlement. That will most likely result in shared facilities and shared expenses, I think it's unlikely that the Scottish diplomats will be expelled from buildings that we own just as much as the rest of the UK.

[theblether]

When will the Scots ever take their balls out of their sporans or whatever, and decide they can live without England ---- yep, no balls.

1979. Luckily \,the rules were gerrymandered against us.

I look forward to a No vote, in 2014, and enslaving the English to the pitiful ignorant serfdom to which they are so admirably suited, but if we have to, I hope we can proper without the peons

SC

I wish you would stop upsetting the natives

By the way......I don't think the Labour Party would agree with you, it was the second biggest own goal in Labour Party history........18 years they seethed in opposition as a English Tory government rampaged through Scotland.

The biggest own goal was introducing the new electoral system in Scotland, my God what were they thinking? Nutters

Edited October 25, 2012 by theblether

[StreetCowboy]

When will the Scots ever take their balls out of their sporans or whatever, and decide they can live without England ---- yep, no balls.

1979. Luckily \,the rules were gerrymandered against us.

I look forward to a No vote, in 2014, and enslaving the English to the pitiful ignorant serfdom to which they are so admirably suited, but if we have to, I hope we can proper without the peons

SC

I wish you would stop upsetting the natives

I worry that my fellow scots are too parochoal to see the opportunities on offer; and to see what those few amongst us with a broader perspecrtive and imagination can offer to that limited country,,,,

I'll be sad to be the last Scottish in my family,though I may be too late even for that. The whole proposition fills me with anticipation fo furtle and ignorant stupifity beyond the realms of commonsense,and I cannot help but flel that whatever, it will be worse for me and mine,

SC

[7by7]

@7x7......the first part of this will enrage many, the FCO is not the property of England, and the assumption that the FCO will " let " anything happen is wrong. The FCO will do as their political masters tell them and they will be told the situation after the negotiated settlement.

Indeed, the FCO is a department of the British government; but by FCO I meant the FCO on the instructions of the government as it will be their resonsibility.

Correct........in the first instance they will carry on as normal, after that they will carry on under the direction of the UK government under the terms of the settlement. That will most likely result in shared facilities and shared expenses, I think it's unlikely that the Scottish diplomats will be expelled from buildings that we own just as much as the rest of the UK.

If there is a yes vote, no one will be expelling you; you will have chosen to leave.

If you have a right to use the buildings because you helped pay for them, can we English taxpayers have a refund of all our tax money spent on infrastructure in Scotland? We paid for it, so don't we own it? Or perhaps the new Scottish government can just pay us rent for using it?

[folium]

@Folium

"Drivel. Reform of the UNSC, which is long overdue as the Permanent Members reflect the winners of WW2 (plus France, sadly), is more than likely to see an enlargement rather than a replacement. Turkeys rarely vote for Christmas. The G4 group (Germany, India, Japan & Brazil) is supported by the UK as new Permanent Members but opposed by regional rivals such as Italy, Pakistan etc. if Scotland goes independent this will have no impact on this debate."

Just plain wrong, there has been an undercurrent of resentment against the UK veto building for a while, and attempts by the EU to take control of the seat.

http://www.scribd.co...ecurity-Council

If your going to use derogatory terms such as "drivel" you better make sure what follows is correct. The entire standing of the UK will go into flux if Scotland gains Independence. Just read the summary and weep eh?

To be fair I forgot about Devenport, I was under the impression it was a maintenance yard similar to Rosyth rather than a fully operational submarine base did say that I'm not an expert on the matter. I'll take it you can confirm that Devenport is currently a fully operational Nuclear Sub base?

Here's some links for you re Faslane........

http://local.stv.tv/...ndent-scotland/

http://www.defencema...ry.asp?id=20012

There seems to be a deep seated concern about losing Faslane, what can I say? The biggest single negotiation after independence will be the future of Faslane.....that seems dramatic to me and the only person that seems to think it will easy to relocate the Subs is you......go figure

Re The Russians, they have been seeking a warm weather port for hundreds of years, that was the primary drive of the Crimean War and the primary reason why they are so supportive of the Syrian Assad regime. If your an expert on this issue then you know how important that issue has been to Russian political thinking since the days of the Tzars. It was relevant to exp[lain why wielding the Veto is so important, you know the same Veto that the EU are trying to take control of?

Your last comment shows how little you know about British history.......maybe it would be better for you to go study it and come back with an explanation as to why England was so determined to absorb Scotland. Let me tell you, it wasn't an act of charity

Still not convinced that the loss of Scotland would jeopardise the UK's UNSC permanent member status. As 7by7 pointed out Russia lost far more with the break up of the Soviet Union but maintained its status.

Devonport currently houses the Trafalgar nuclear submarines and co-hosts the new Astute subs (though they are due to relocate to Faslane in 2017). It does not have a nuclear weapons facility like Coulport and if the Vanguard subs had to relocate from Faslane they would have to use the facilities at King's Bay, Georgia. The removal of nuclear subs from Faslane would have an enormous impact on Scotland's economy as it currently employs directly and indirectly 11,000 people.

On the need for history lessons perhaps you should look into the impact of the Darien Scheme and how it helped enable the Act of Union in 1707.

[nontabury]

@SC

We have our average share of politicians and a well above share of people who will let their feelings be known if things go wrong. Part of this debate is about taking responsibility for ourselves and not blaming the UK government for everything.

The old adage " be careful what you ask for as sometimes you will get it " may well come into play here.

To be honest, I'd rather the SNP focussed on properly subjugating the English, and returning them to the serfdom to which they are so ideally suited. The labour party came close to achieving this, and had it not been for their ridiculous socialist policies, Scotland could have re-established itself at the top tier of nations, in the position that we enjoyed under our guest monarchs, the House of Hanover.

SC

AhcanseewhytheywanttaerevokethelicensefirtheGashaus,bytheway

RIBB

If there is a yes vote, it will be followed fairly quickly by a general election in Scotland,then I'am thinking, who will put forward the most socialist policies,the Nationalist party or the Labour party.

[theblether]

@7x7......the first part of this will enrage many, the FCO is not the property of England, and the assumption that the FCO will " let " anything happen is wrong. The FCO will do as their political masters tell them and they will be told the situation after the negotiated settlement.

Indeed, the FCO is a department of the British government; but by FCO I meant the FCO on the instructions of the government as it will be their resonsibility.

Correct........in the first instance they will carry on as normal, after that they will carry on under the direction of the UK government under the terms of the settlement. That will most likely result in shared facilities and shared expenses, I think it's unlikely that the Scottish diplomats will be expelled from buildings that we own just as much as the rest of the UK.

If there is a yes vote, no one will be expelling you; you will have chosen to leave.

If you have a right to use the buildings because you helped pay for them, can we English taxpayers have a refund of all our tax money spent on infrastructure in Scotland? We paid for it, so don't we own it? Or perhaps the new Scottish government can just pay us rent for using it?

No 7x7, you don't own it.....England as an entity doesn't exist outside the history books and being a regional sub-division of the country known as the United Kingdom. You are a British citizen, not an English citizen. I am a British citizen, not a Scottish citizen. So don't be allowing palpably wrong arguments to enter into this debate, the English paid for nothing, the British paid for everything.

[theblether]

@Folium

"Drivel. Reform of the UNSC, which is long overdue as the Permanent Members reflect the winners of WW2 (plus France, sadly), is more than likely to see an enlargement rather than a replacement. Turkeys rarely vote for Christmas. The G4 group (Germany, India, Japan & Brazil) is supported by the UK as new Permanent Members but opposed by regional rivals such as Italy, Pakistan etc. if Scotland goes independent this will have no impact on this debate."

Just plain wrong, there has been an undercurrent of resentment against the UK veto building for a while, and attempts by the EU to take control of the seat.

http://www.scribd.co...ecurity-Council

If your going to use derogatory terms such as "drivel" you better make sure what follows is correct. The entire standing of the UK will go into flux if Scotland gains Independence. Just read the summary and weep eh?

To be fair I forgot about Devenport, I was under the impression it was a maintenance yard similar to Rosyth rather than a fully operational submarine base did say that I'm not an expert on the matter. I'll take it you can confirm that Devenport is currently a fully operational Nuclear Sub base?

Here's some links for you re Faslane........

http://local.stv.tv/...ndent-scotland/

http://www.defencema...ry.asp?id=20012

There seems to be a deep seated concern about losing Faslane, what can I say? The biggest single negotiation after independence will be the future of Faslane.....that seems dramatic to me and the only person that seems to think it will easy to relocate the Subs is you......go figure

Re The Russians, they have been seeking a warm weather port for hundreds of years, that was the primary drive of the Crimean War and the primary reason why they are so supportive of the Syrian Assad regime. If your an expert on this issue then you know how important that issue has been to Russian political thinking since the days of the Tzars. It was relevant to exp[lain why wielding the Veto is so important, you know the same Veto that the EU are trying to take control of?

Your last comment shows how little you know about British history.......maybe it would be better for you to go study it and come back with an explanation as to why England was so determined to absorb Scotland. Let me tell you, it wasn't an act of charity

Still not convinced that the loss of Scotland would jeopardise the UK's UNSC permanent member status. As 7by7 pointed out Russia lost far more with the break up of the Soviet Union but maintained its status.

Devonport currently houses the Trafalgar nuclear submarines and co-hosts the new Astute subs (though they are due to relocate to Faslane in 2017). It does not have a nuclear weapons facility like Coulport and if the Vanguard subs had to relocate from Faslane they would have to use the facilities at King's Bay, Georgia. The removal of nuclear subs from Faslane would have an enormous impact on Scotland's economy as it currently employs directly and indirectly 11,000 people.

On the need for history lessons perhaps you should look into the impact of the Darien Scheme and how it helped enable the Act of Union in 1707.

I'm not saying that the United Nations status would be automatically lost, I am saying that there are moves afoot to unseat the UK and anything that diminishes the standing of the UK will be seized upon by the many opponents that we have.

Russia is not a good comparison, Russia after the break up was still a major nuclear power and easily the greatest threat to Western safety, there was no way they were going to lose the Veto without causing an intolerable diplomatic incident.

Re the subs......it's already been pointed out that will be a burning political issue in this election, and one which Salmond will find hard to win.

Re the history lessons on Scottish history.......you are joking Folium, I am fully aware of the Darien Scheme and the Alien Act.....you are not seriously proposing that the Darien Disaster was the primary drive behind England's desire to subsume Scotland are you?

The Alien Act is not taught in Scottish schools.........and you need to look deeper into why England was determined to subsume Scotland......the reason is obvious.

[7by7]

No 7x7, you don't own it (Scottish infrastructure).....England as an entity doesn't exist outside the history books and being a regional sub-division of the country known as the United Kingdom. You are a British citizen, not an English citizen. I am a British citizen, not a Scottish citizen. So don't be allowing palpably wrong arguments to enter into this debate, the English paid for nothing, the British paid for everything.

Then, following your argument, Scotland also does not exist as an entity anymore, except as a sub division of the UK. Therefore the Scottish people have no claim on British embassies and consulates. They are owned by the United Kingdom and if Scotland leaves the UK then it gives up any claim it may have upon them.

A minor point, anyway.

As already discussed, there are far more serious reasons why leaving the union would, in the long term, be disastrous for the Scottish people.

As a supporter (member?) of the SNP I wonder if you could answer a question for me?

It's no big deal as far as the independence argument goes; but I am curious.

Would an independent Scotland remain in the Commonwealth and would it keep the Queen as head of state?

She is half Scottish, after all.

[folium]

@Folium

"Drivel. Reform of the UNSC, which is long overdue as the Permanent Members reflect the winners of WW2 (plus France, sadly), is more than likely to see an enlargement rather than a replacement. Turkeys rarely vote for Christmas. The G4 group (Germany, India, Japan & Brazil) is supported by the UK as new Permanent Members but opposed by regional rivals such as Italy, Pakistan etc. if Scotland goes independent this will have no impact on this debate."

Just plain wrong, there has been an undercurrent of resentment against the UK veto building for a while, and attempts by the EU to take control of the seat.

http://www.scribd.co...ecurity-Council

If your going to use derogatory terms such as "drivel" you better make sure what follows is correct. The entire standing of the UK will go into flux if Scotland gains Independence. Just read the summary and weep eh?

To be fair I forgot about Devenport, I was under the impression it was a maintenance yard similar to Rosyth rather than a fully operational submarine base did say that I'm not an expert on the matter. I'll take it you can confirm that Devenport is currently a fully operational Nuclear Sub base?

Here's some links for you re Faslane........

http://local.stv.tv/...ndent-scotland/

http://www.defencema...ry.asp?id=20012

There seems to be a deep seated concern about losing Faslane, what can I say? The biggest single negotiation after independence will be the future of Faslane.....that seems dramatic to me and the only person that seems to think it will easy to relocate the Subs is you......go figure

Re The Russians, they have been seeking a warm weather port for hundreds of years, that was the primary drive of the Crimean War and the primary reason why they are so supportive of the Syrian Assad regime. If your an expert on this issue then you know how important that issue has been to Russian political thinking since the days of the Tzars. It was relevant to exp[lain why wielding the Veto is so important, you know the same Veto that the EU are trying to take control of?

Your last comment shows how little you know about British history.......maybe it would be better for you to go study it and come back with an explanation as to why England was so determined to absorb Scotland. Let me tell you, it wasn't an act of charity

Still not convinced that the loss of Scotland would jeopardise the UK's UNSC permanent member status. As 7by7 pointed out Russia lost far more with the break up of the Soviet Union but maintained its status.

Devonport currently houses the Trafalgar nuclear submarines and co-hosts the new Astute subs (though they are due to relocate to Faslane in 2017). It does not have a nuclear weapons facility like Coulport and if the Vanguard subs had to relocate from Faslane they would have to use the facilities at King's Bay, Georgia. The removal of nuclear subs from Faslane would have an enormous impact on Scotland's economy as it currently employs directly and indirectly 11,000 people.

On the need for history lessons perhaps you should look into the impact of the Darien Scheme and how it helped enable the Act of Union in 1707.

I'm not saying that the United Nations status would be automatically lost, I am saying that there are moves afoot to unseat the UK and anything that diminishes the standing of the UK will be seized upon by the many opponents that we have.

Russia is not a good comparison, Russia after the break up was still a major nuclear power and easily the greatest threat to Western safety, there was no way they were going to lose the Veto without causing an intolerable diplomatic incident.

Re the subs......it's already been pointed out that will be a burning political issue in this election, and one which Salmond will find hard to win.

Re the history lessons on Scottish history.......you are joking Folium, I am fully aware of the Darien Scheme and the Alien Act.....you are not seriously proposing that the Darien Disaster was the primary drive behind England's desire to subsume Scotland are you?

The Alien Act is not taught in Scottish schools.........and you need to look deeper into why England was determined to subsume Scotland......the reason is obvious.

Looks like we will differ on most of these issues, such is life...

Here's a thought, which of these will happen first:

1. Independence for Scotland

2. Scotland qualifying for the World Cup Finals.

3. The Tories winning 5 seats in Scotland

4. Steely Dan converts to Islam.

Just as Scotland entered the Union for economic reasons (amongst others), so economic logic and a clear understanding of which side the bread is buttered, will keep them in the Union.

Edited October 26, 2012 by folium

[Thaddeus]

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.